Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Risk-Reducing Surgery for Breast Cancer

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Screening and Risk Reduction Strategies for Breast Cancer

  • 279 Accesses

Abstract

In recent years, there has been an upsurge of interest in identifying women with genetic predisposition and this has been facilitated by enhanced understanding of the genetic basis for breast cancer susceptibility derived from genome-wide linkage analysis and mutational screening. The focus has shifted from high-penetrance genes to intermediate and low penetrance mutations that confer lower levels of risk individually but collectively are more significant. There has been frenzied public interest in genetic testing and risk reduction strategies following revelations in the New York Times in May 2013 that the famed actress Angelina Jolie had chosen to undergo bilateral prophylactic mastectomy due to carriage of a BRCA-1 gene mutation. Genetic counseling and testing for breast cancer predisposition have been formally implemented in many countries, and the number of women seeking genetic testing continues to rise. Nonetheless, despite these advances in genetics, approximately 30% of familial breast cancer risk remains unaccounted for by mutations in currently known genes. Moreover, genetic changes do not necessarily have a causative association with a diseased state, and phenotypic manifestations of cancer are variable. The clinical management of women with an asymptomatic mutation in BRCA1 and BRCA2 or carriage of a mutation in other high-risk genes such as TP53, PALB2, or pTEN is increasingly complex. Approaches include screening, chemoprevention, and risk-reducing surgery but the outcomes of these different interventions for risk reduction remain variable in terms of accuracy of data and levels of certainty. In particular, although an intervention may reduce the chance of developing breast cancer, this may not translate into a reduction in mortality with gains in both breast cancer-specific and overall survival. No randomized trials have addressed the impact of these risk-reducing strategies on either incidence or survival outcomes with much of the evidence for efficacy derived from observational studies that are prone to systematic biases. It important that women with a hereditary predisposition are fully informed about the limitations of the existing knowledge base relating to risk-reducing interventions for breast cancer.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Abbreviations

BPM:

Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy

BSO:

Bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy

ER:

Estrogen receptor

HER2:

Human epidermal growth factor receptor

HRT:

Hormone replacement therapy

MRI:

Magnetic resonance imaging

NICE:

National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence

PR:

Progesterone receptor

TNBC:

Triple negative breast cancer

VUS:

Variations of uncertain clinical significance

References

  1. Anderson WF, Jatoi I, Tse J, Rosenberg PS. Male breast cancer: a population-based comparison with female breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(2):232–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Mcpherson K, Steel CM, Dixon JM. ABC of breast diseases. Breast cancer-epidemiology, risk factors, and genetics. BMJ. 2000;321(7261):624–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Oseni T, Jatoi I. An overview of the role of prophylactic surgery in the management of individuals with a hereditary cancer predisposition. Surg Clin North Am. 2008;88(4):739–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Jatoi I, Benson JR, Liau SS, et al. The role of surgery in cancer prevention. Curr Probl Surg. 2010;47(10):750–830.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Benson JR, Jatoi I, Keisch M, Esteva FJ, Makris A, Jordan VC. Early breast cancer. Lancet. 2009;373(9673):1463–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Harvie M, Howell A, Evans DG. Can diet and lifestyle prevent breast cancer: what is the evidence? Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2015;2015:e66–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gabai-Kapara E, Lahad A, Kaufman B, et al. Population-based screening for breast and ovarian cancer risk due to BRCA1 and BRCA2. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;111(39):14205–10.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  8. Hartmann LC, Lindor NM. The role of risk-reducing surgery in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(5):454–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Narod SA, Amos C. Estimating the power of linkage analysis in hereditary breast cancer. Am J Hum Genet. 1990;46(2):266–72.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Knudson AG Jr. Hereditary cancer, oncogenes and anti-oncogenes. Cancer Res. 1985;45(5):1437–43.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Knudson AG Jr. Genetics of human cancer. Annu Rev Genet. 1986;20:231–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. King MC, Levy-Lahad E, Lahad A. Population-based screening for BRCA1 and BRCA2: 2014 Lasker award. JAMA. 2014;312(11):1091–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. King MC, Marks JH, Mandell JB. Breast and ovarian cancer risks due to inherited mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. Science. 2003;302(5645):643–6.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  14. Struewing JP, Hartge P, Wacholder S, et al. The risk of cancer associated with specific mutations of BRCA1 and BRCA2 among Ashkenazi Jews. N Engl J Med. 1997;226(20):1401–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ford D, Easton DF, Stratton M, et al. Genetic heterogeneity and penetrance analysis of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in breast cancer families. The breast cancer linkage consortium. Am J Hum Genet. 1998;62(3):676–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Satagopan JM, Boyd J, Kauff ND, et al. Ovarian cancer risk in Askenazi Jewish carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. Clin Cancer Res. 2002;8(12):3776–81.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Antoniou AC, Casadei S, Heikkinen T, et al. Breast-cancer risk in families with mutations in PALB2. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(6):497–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Eisen A, Lubinski J, Klijn J, et al. Breast cancer risk following bilateral oophorectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: an international case-control study. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(30):7491–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Antoniou A, Cunningham A, Peto J, et al. The BOADICEA model of genetic susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancers: updates and extensions. Br J Cancer. 2008;98:1457–66. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6604305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hutchinson L. Screening: BRCA testing in women younger than 50 with triple-negative breast cancer is cost effective. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2010;7(11):611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Mavaddat N, Antoniou AC, Easton DF, Garcia-Closas M. Genetic susceptibility to breast cancer. Mol Oncol. 2010;4(3):174–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lane DP, Hupp TR. Drug discovery and p53. Drug Discov Today. 2003;8(8):347–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Bougeard G, Renaux-Petel M, Flaman JM, et al. Revisiting li-Fraumeni syndrome from TP53 mutation carriers. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(21):2345–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Nelen MR, Padberg GW, Peeters EA, et al. Localization of the gene for Cowden disease to chromosome 10q22–23. Nat Genet. 1996;13(1):114–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Thompson D, Easton D. The genetic epidemiology of breast cancer genes. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia. 2004;9(3):221–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Antoniou AC, Easton DF. Models of genetic susceptibility to breast cancer. Oncogene. 2006;25(43):5898–905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Udler MS, Meyer KB, Pooley KA, et al. FGFR2 variants and breast cancer risk: ne-scale mapping using African American studies and analysis of chromatin conformation. Hum Mol Genet. 2009;18(9):1692–703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Meijers-Heijboer H, Van Den Ouweland A, Klijn J, et al. Low-penetrance susceptibility to breast cancer due to CHEK2(*)1100delC in noncarriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. Nat Genet. 2002;31(1):55–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Geller G, Bernhardt BA, Doksum T, Helzlsouer KJ, Wilcox P, Holtzman NA. Decision-making about breast cancer susceptibility testing: how similar are the attitudes of physicians, nurse practitioners, and at-risk women? J Clin Oncol. 1998;16(8):2868–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. National Collaborating Centre for Cancer. Familial breast cancer: classification and care of people at risk of familial breast cancer and management of breast cancer and related risks in people with a family history of breast cancer, NICE Clinical Guidelines, No. 164. Cardiff, UK: National Collaborating Centre for Cancer; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Metcalf K, An E, Senter L, et al. International trends in the uptake of cancer risk reduction strategies in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. Br J Cancer. 2019;121:15–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Black WC, Nease RF Jr, Tosteson AN. Perceptions of breast cancer risk and screening effectiveness in women younger than 50 years of age. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1995;87(10):720–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Amir E, Freedman OC, Seruga B, Evans DG. Assessing women at high risk of breast cancer: a review of risk assessment models. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102(10):680–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Pijpe A, Andrieu N, Easton DF, et al. Exposure to diagnostic radiation and risk of breast cancer among carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations: retrospective cohort study (GENE-RAD- RISK). BMJ. 2012;345:e5660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Kuhl C, Weigel S, Schrading S, et al. Prospective multicenter cohort study to re ne management recommendations for women at elevated familial risk of breast cancer: the EVA trial. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(9):1450–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Chang-Claude J, Andrieu N, Rookus M, et al. Age at menarche and menopause and breast cancer risk in the international BRCA1/2 carrier cohort study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2007;16(4):740–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kauff N, Domchek S, Friebel T, et al. Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy for the prevention of BRCA1 and BRCA2 associated breast and gynaecologic cancer: a multicentre, prospective study. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(8):1331–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Heemskerk-Gerritsen BAM, Menke-Pluijmers MBE, Jager A, et al. Substantial breast cancer risk reduction and potential survival benefit after bilateral mastectomy when compared with surveillance in healthy BCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: a prospective analysis. Ann Oncol. 2013;24(8):2029–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Visvanathan K, Chlebowski RT, Hurley P, et al. American society of clinical oncology clinical practice guideline update on the use of pharmacologic interventions including tamoxifen, raloxifene, and aromatase inhibition for breast cancer risk reduction. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(19):3235–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. King MC, Wieand S, Hale K, et al. Tamoxifen and breast cancer incidence among women with inherited mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2: National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and bowel project (NSABP-P1) breast cancer prevention trial. JAMA. 2001;286(18):2251–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Hartmann LC, Schaid DJ, Woods JE, et al. Efficacy of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy in women with a family history of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 1999;340(2):77–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Rebbeck TR, Freibel T, Lynch HT, et al. Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy reduces breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: the PROSE study group. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(6):1055–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Kauff ND, Satagopan JM, Robson ME, et al. Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(21):1609–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Domchek SM, Friebel TM, Neuhausen SL, et al. Mortality after bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2006;7(3):223–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Klaren HM, van’t Veer LJ, van Leeuwen FE, Rookus MA. Potential for bias in studies on efficacy of prophylactic surgery for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95(13):941–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Hartmann LC, Degnim A, Schaid DJ. Prophylactic mastectomy for BRCA1/2 carriers; progress and more questions. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(6):981–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Lakhani SR, Van de Vijver MJ, Jacquemier J, et al. The pathology of familial breast cancer: predictive value of immunohistochemical markers estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, HER2 and p53 in patients with mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(9):2310–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Domchek SM, Friebel TM, Singer CF, et al. Association of risk-reducing surgery in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers with cancer risk and mortality. JAMA. 2010;304(9):967–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Eleje GU, et al. Risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy in women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;8(8):CD012464.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Heemskerk-Gerritsen BAM, Jager A, Koppert LB, et al. Survival after bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy in healthy BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2019;177(3):723–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Giannakeas V, Narod SA. The expected benefit of preventive mastectomy on breast cancer incidence and mortality in BRCA mutation carriers, by age at mastectomy. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;167:263–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Carbine NE, Lostumbo L, Wallace J, et al. Risk-reducing mastectomy for the prevention of primary breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;4:CD002748.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Montgomery LL, Tran KN, Borgen P, et al. Issues of regret in women with contralateral prophylactic mastectomies. Ann Surg Oncol. 1999;6:546–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Jatoi I. Bilateral mastectomy for unilateral breast cancer: a perplexing trend. Indian J Surg Oncol. 2015;6(4):387–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Van den Broek AJ, van’t Veer LJ, Hooning MJ, et al. Impact of age at primary breast cancer on contralateral breast cancer risk in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(5):409–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Van Sprundel TC, Schmidt MK, Rookus MA, et al. Risk reduction of contralateral breast cancer and survival after contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in BRCA1 or 71 BRCA2 mutation carriers. Br J Cancer. 2005;93(3):287–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Benson JR, Winters ZE. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Br J Surg. 2016;103(10):1249–50. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.10223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Jatoi I. Options in breast cancer local therapy: who gets what? World J Surg. 2012;36(7):1498–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Chadab TM, Bernstein J, Lifrieri A, et al. Is it worth the risk? Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy with immediate bilateral breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2021;87(Suppl. 1):S2–6.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Mallon P, Feron JG, Couturaud B, et al. The role of nipple-sparing mastectomy in breast cancer: a comprehensive review of the literature. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;131(5):969–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Murthy V, Chamberlain RS. Nipple-sparing mastectomy in modern breast practice. Clin Anat. 2013;26(1):56–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Jakub JW, Peled AW, Gray RJ, et al. Oncologic safety of prophylactic nipple-sparing mastectomy in a population with BRCA mutations: a multi-institutional study. JAMA Surg. 2018;15(2):123–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Nagaraja V, Edirimanne S, Eslick GD, et al. Is sentinel lymph node biopsy necessary in patients undergoing prophylactic mastectomy? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast J. 2016;22:158–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Boughey JC, Khakpour N, Meric-Bernstam F, et al. Selective use of sentinel lymph node surgery during prophylactic mastectomy. Cancer. 2006;107:1440–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.22176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Murthy V, Chamberlain RS. Prophylactic mastectomy in patients at high risk: is there a role for sentinel lymph node biopsy? Clin Breast Cancer. 2013;13:180–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2012.12.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. DiSipio T, Rye S, Newman B, Hayes S. Incidence of unilateral arm lymphoedema after breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:500–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70076-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Agha RA, Wellstead G, Sagoo H, et al. Nipple sparing versus skin sparing mastectomy: a systematic review protocol. BMJ Open 6(5), e010151 (2016). The role of mammography and ultrasound regardless of patient mutation status, age, and breast density. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(10):1128–35.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Moreno L, Linossi C, Esteban I, et al. Germline BRCA testing is moving from cancer risk assessment to a predictive biomarker for targeting cancer therapeutics. Clin Transl Oncol. 2016;18(10):981–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-015-1470-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Jatoi I, Benson JR. Management of patients with a hereditary predisposition for breast cancer. Future Oncol. 2016;12(19):2277–88. https://doi.org/10.2217/fon-2016-0186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cambridge Breast Unit, Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK

    John R. Benson & Samantha Muktar

  2. School of Medicine, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK

    John R. Benson

  3. Division of Surgical Oncology, Dale H. Dorn Chair in Surgery, University of Texas Health Science Centre, San Antonio, TX, USA

    Ismail Jatoi

Authors
  1. John R. Benson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Samantha Muktar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ismail Jatoi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John R. Benson .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Grad. School Medicine, Surgery, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan

    Masakazu Toi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Benson, J.R., Muktar, S., Jatoi, I. (2023). Risk-Reducing Surgery for Breast Cancer. In: Toi, M. (eds) Screening and Risk Reduction Strategies for Breast Cancer. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-7630-8_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-7630-8_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-19-7629-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-19-7630-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation